I have lately participated in a discussion concerning our energy future which is fascinating in what it reveals about our modern dilemma. There are decisions hanging in the balance today which will have enormous impact on our future, and even those of us who are well informed and well intentioned can reasonably hold passionately opposite views  while most of the populace doesn’t understand and a whole slew don’t really care as long as the lights come on and the bills don’t swamp them.

The debate has evolved out of Bush’s desire to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) and the electricity crunch in California. The former governor is using California’s woes as his latest reason for Alaskan drilling (a typical ploy  just as he campaigned for a tax cut because the economy was splendid and now says we need a tax cut because we might recess  anything to justify his druthers).

The current discussion engrosses me because it does not pit enemies of the environment versus enemies of the Oily Prince, but has occurred between two sets of environmentalists. Both sides seek remediation of the carbon build-up causing global climate change. On the one side a proponent of fuel cells powered by liquified petroleum gas suggests that ANWR could provide the fuel for a new generation of low-emission power plants. On the other hand, a proponent of solar power claims that fossil fueled fuel cells are inefficient and will only modestly decrease emissions while continuing the despoliation caused by the petrochemical industries.

I am somewhat better equipped to evaluate this debate than many, having lived off the grid for over 20 years (photovoltaic), having read widely on both energy, environmental, economic and political issues and history and having written about them for over a decade - but I am confused by the opposing claims. I, like probably 99 percent of the population, don’t have the technical knowledge to evaluate them.

The solar proponent’s viewpoint makes more practical sense to me, based on my experience with photovoltaic power and my memory. While the opposing arguments may be grounded in fact and practicality, they make the fuel cells in question sound almost too good to be true. This reminds me of claims in the 1950s that nuclear power would soon be too cheap to meter, viewed against our current realization that it will remain too expensive to be borne for millennia. On the other hand, Amory Lovins, at the Rocky Mountain Institute, believes hydrogen fuel cells are the ticket, and I am unaware of his being wrong on any energy question since he helped convince me to leave the grid. (Lovins is clearly in the 1 percent who understands this stuff.)

Then again, Lovins advocates hydrogen fuel cells with natural gas fuel cells as an interim step. Does an interim step justify despoiling more of the Arctic - particularly when estimated reserves there amount to only a 200-day supply for this country?

I know from the start that my preferred solution - that we all cut back our carbon emissions by the 60-70 percent suggested by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now, by curbing our energy use radically - is a non-starter. People are too accustomed to comforts that have become “necessities” and the money and power involved are too great. So some sort of large scale shift that maintains the current profligacy will presumably occur. If petroleum powered fuel cells are the next step, the implications are enormous.

I have seen the Alaska pipeline and the damaged boreal tundra, I have walked amidst oil-soaked sea birds and dead seals on the Pacific coast. The prospect of further drilling in the Arctic and more leaky pipes and tankers frightens me viscerally. I simply don’t believe the promises that it can be done cleanly. “Show me one example,” I say.

On the other hand, there is an infrastructure for petroleum and gas distribution, and a shift to photovoltaic and wind generation will take enormous investment (the grid is there - but the jump in hardware production would be huge). Fuel cells, a proven technology dating to the 1850s, are being embraced by auto, electronic, electric and manufacturing concerns as the next big step.

Answers are imperative. At this point I still oppose ANWR drilling. But, then, where will we get the gas?

“Wyoming,” someone said. At least there, Dick Cheney’s new neighbors will make him explain the mess.

Bothwell is author of Gorillas in the Myth: A Duck Soup Reader, and editor of the Warren Wilson College environmental journal, “Heartstone.”

 

Back to Top
The Smoky Mountain News